On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Beach Samurai <beach.samurai_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> How does one come about having this licence? For all i know you might have
> an engineering degree and still be licenced with the amount of corruption in
> this country....
>
You have to pay to be an ISP:
https://www.icta.mu/telecommunications/licences.htm
So MIXP's board is made up only of ISP members. You cannot be a member
without having an ISP license.
In other countries, it is better: An institutional organization or a
non-profit one can also be part of an IXP board.
> On Mar 31, 2015 3:06 PM, "Loganaden Velvindron" <loganaden_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 2:38 PM, S Moonesamy <sm+mu_at_elandsys.com> wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I chaired the second meeting of the .mu Select Committee which was held
>> > in
>> > ICTA Board Room at 10:10 a.m. I took some notes of that meeting. The
>> > purpose of the meeting was to discuss about the commercial, technical
>> > and
>> > policy components for .mu.
>> >
>> > Mr Beegun pointed out that the commercial component comes after the
>> > policy
>> > component. Mr Ramalingum mentioned that the commercial component is
>> > important as we need to know the costs. He commented that it is an
>> > important factor but we need to consider the other items first. Mr
>> > Gentil
>> > mentioned that the price of a .mu domain name is an issue and Mr
>> > Ramalingum
>> > agreed to that. Mr Dabeesing commented that he business model cannot be
>> > finalized right now. Mr Ramalingum compared the cost of .com and .mu
>> > and
>> > commented that the price difference is because of economies of scale.
>> > Mr
>> > Dabeesing asked whether a .mu domain name is sold at a fixed price. Mr
>> > Gentil mentioned that he is a .mu registrar and he is charged the
>> > wholesale
>> > price.
>> >
>> > Mr Gentil gave a quick overview of the of the estimated cost [1] for the
>> > technical component. The new version of the estimates proposes three
>> > staff.
>> > There would be two of the DNS servers hosted in Mauritius. Mr Dabeesing
>> > asked when we can become operational. Mr Ramalingum suggested having
>> > the
>> > Goc hosts the DNS servers. Mr Dabeesing suggested having the DNS servers
>> > hosted at the MIXP. Mr Gaonjur commented that Mauritians may have an
>> > issue
>> > with it being hosted at the MIXP as there is a perception that it is the
>> > Government Online Centre. Mr Ramaligum pointed out that the MIXP is
>> > open to
>> > everyone.
>> >
>>
>> Hi SM,
>>
>> I once contacted th MIXP to host an Open Source mirror. I was told
>> that I couldn't be part of the board, because I didn't have an ISP
>> license. So, I would like further clarification regarding the
>> statement "MIXP is open to everyone", which is not convincing.
>>
>> > Mr Dabeesing presented the policy component. There is a policy problem
>> > and
>> > a problem in the law. Mr Beegun mentioned that we have to see who will
>> > be
>> > part of the .mu Council. It will be up to the .mu Council to finalize
>> > its
>> > objectives and the details. As a comment about the .mu Council, Mr
>> > Dabeesing said that he advised that a two-tier model is complicated and
>> > it
>> > would not work. Mr Gentil mentioned that his main concern is the
>> > membership. Mr Ramalingum mentioned that it will not be possible to get
>> > something running with hundred people being part of the discussion. Mr
>> > Ramalingum added that certain organisations need to have reserved seats
>> > on
>> > the .mu Council and it can be enlarge later.
>>
>> Reserved seats ?
>>
>> I would welcome further clarification regaring the list of "reserved
>> seats". In that case, I believe that MIU should have reserved seats
>> as MIU was the most active during the .mu problems. I would like to
>> know what those organizations -- who would like to have a reserved
>> seat today -- were doing when members of MIU raised awareness of the
>> problems with .mu ?
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Mr Gaonjur asked whether MITIA would have a seat. MITIA would have a
>> > seat
>> > according to the current .mu Council document. Mr Gaonjur asked about
>> > the
>> > cost and Mr Ramalingum replied that the cost is not an issue for now.
>>
>> I think that the .mu Council needs to be reviewed as it does not
>> reflect the composition of the local Internet Community. I would like
>> to make it clear that I have no problem with private companies who
>> would like to participate, but I would prefer to have a small number
>> of companies who have demonstrated their understanding of the .mu
>> problems, and a willingness to improve the current state of affairs.
>> Hence, I think that members of MIU should be present as well to
>> balance the composition of the .mu Council.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Mr Ramaligum estimated that the time to be operational would be around
>> > six
>> > months and Mr Ramalingum agreed. Mr Dabeesing mentioned that time is of
>> > the
>> > essense; ee need to show that it can be done in the estimated time. Mr
>> > Dabeesing mentioned that the issue is not money, we need to show that we
>> > can
>> > get this running. Mr Gaonjur asked for some background information
>> > about
>> > .mu and Mr Ramalingum provided the information.
>>
>> It appears that some of those organizations lack understanding the of
>> problems with .mu, and want a reserved seat. I don't think that this
>> is the right approach.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > As a representative I said that I was in favor of a membership model
>> > instead
>> > of a .mu Council representative model. I pointed out that there were
>> > two
>> > ISOC-MU and I raised an issue about the Consumer Protection Agency
>> > representing users and having a representative appointed by a Minister.
>> > I
>> > mentioned that the Mauritius Internet Users would not have any
>> > representative under the currently proposed .mu Council model.
>>
>> And this is definitely wrong. MIU was the first group to raise
>> awareness of the problems with .mu. We need to modify the .mu Council
>> to balance the composition of that group so that it is a well balanced
>> board.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > There was agreement for the Chair to draft a report and submit it to
>> > Chairperson of the Multi-stakeholder Forum once there was agreement
>> > among
>> > the .mu Select Committee members. The draft report would recommend
>> > having a
>> > non-profit organisation without discussing about the details of
>> > membership.
>> > It was agreed that this would be the last meeting of the .mu Select
>> > Committee.
>> >
>> > The meeting ended at 11:05.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > S. Moonesamy
>> >
>> > 1. http://www.elandsys.com/~sm/mu-selectcommittee-technicalproposal.docx
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> This message is strictly personal and the opinions expressed do not
>> represent those of my employers, either past or present.
>>
>
--
This message is strictly personal and the opinions expressed do not
represent those of my employers, either past or present.
Received on Tue Mar 31 2015 - 12:38:42 PST